Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

blog.joinmastodon.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 551 posts

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#501

Post by martimarkov »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #310
martimarkov wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it is correct. I would love for all violations to be policed like this. I didn’t take time away from my family and life for someone else to profit. I did it ONLY because I’d knew what GPL would enforce. The business opening or not does not matter here. GPL is enforced on the moment you publish underneath that license.

What exactly are you hoping for or missing? No actual harm has been done to anybody. If "Truth Social" was online for real it would be different, but now? The beta users presumably didn't mind that they didn't have the source code. I think the Mastodon people are merely hoping they can stop Trump, they are not really concerned about getting the source code.

GPL does not differentiate between beta and not. You use GPL code - you release anything build on top of it. Simple as that. Anyone can request a copy of their source and should get it. Doesn’t matter if it’s in beta or not as long as it’s licensed under GPL. Even if it’s internal software. Don’t like it - go build from scratch and use some other software but don’t break the license agreement just because you are lazy and can’t be bothered to write your own code.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#502

Post by caf »

smaryjerry wrote: post #500
papito wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If both-side-ism makes you feel better than everyone else. It didn't start collapsing in 2017. This has been brewing for a long time, one could argue since the 90s, when political discourse and bipartisanship started degrading. Donald Trump was just the catalyst needed to accelerate the final collapse. And by collapse I mean "collapse". American democracy is not surviving the next 20 years. As an aside, it it really…

Every generation thinks their problems are the worst. It’s just more of the same political fighting where one side demonizes the other to try to get people on their side. The world moves on until the next time they need to demonize someone and nothing of importance really happened. There is no collapse, just on to the next candidate.

Everything stays the same until the moment that it doesn't.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#503

Post by caf »

jrootabega wrote: post #93
CTDOCodebases wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it as being personal at first but on second read interpreted the “antithetical” comment to reference the issue that they were breaking the license and limiting the users freedom.

I meant that my comment was a personal feeling about the license, and not about any particular users or violators of the license. The post says "we would prefer if people so antithetical to our values did not use and benefit from our labour", and that is clearly not a criticism of just the nature of the license violation, but the people who are violating it.

And? It's their website, they can criticise whoever they like on it.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#504

Post by rp1 »

jrootabega wrote: post #498
rp1 wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t a fallacy because I’m not making an argument or asserting the parent commenter is wrong. I’m suggesting to the parent commenter that they follow their own advice and keep their personal beliefs personal. For instance, if someone who eats steak tells me that studies show eating red meat causes heart disease, it’s not a fallacy to suggest that they should stop eating red meat.

> I’m suggesting to the parent commenter that they follow their own advice and keep their personal beliefs personal. Why would you suggest that, rp1? This is a place to discuss things. Our beliefs about appropriate ways to publicize license disputes are part of that.

I’m suggesting it because you said that personal beliefs should be kept personal. Similar to how if someone eating steak told me steak was unhealthy, I would advise them to stop eating steak. I read what you originally wrote, assumed it was true, and pointed out a logical inconsistency.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#505

Post by lorabe »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #440
randyrand wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what site do “the nazis” use now? Do they just keep to themselves? or do they use other nazi forums.

chan sites, gab, some forums on tor... I'm honestly not sure if they're trying to hurt conservatives or if the continual embedding into conservative social platforms is an attempt to cling to relevancy? I don't think all conservatives are nazis by any means, but I'm not a fan of the "any vote we can get" tactics that are hesitant to admonish white supremacy

I think they are fusing, conservatives and racism have almost always been correlated, so there is a common ground.

Having that said, nazism and republican conservatism are surprisingly different, say, nazis are anti jews, conservatives are anti mexicans. Again, there is a common ground.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#506

Post by knorker »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #439
knorker wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it? This is the first I've heard of it.

Theoretically no, but the court is more likely to side with you if your lawyer can go down the list checking off each reason this lawsuit is like the last one that you won.

So actually no, then? It actually won't be held against your case. It's just that you don't have a template yet, you don't have a precedent?

Yeah, that's entirely completely different.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#507

Post by caf »

rsynnott wrote: post #344
jrootabega wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it makes people believe they will enforce the license unevenly to satisfy their personal feelings about who is using it, as well as add an unwritten "these kinds of people are are not allowed to use our software" clause to their license.

> I think it makes people believe they will enforce the license unevenly to satisfy their personal feelings about who is using it Maybe they will. As copyright holders, they are allowed to do that (though I don't think they have copyright assignation, so there would also be lots of _other_ copyright holders who could attempt different enforcement, presumably).

Right, the copyright holder could grant an alternative license with any terms they like to any specific recipients they'd like to.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#508

Post by lorabe »

Smithalicious wrote: post #307

Okay, fair enough, I expected worse from the title. The "antithetical to our values" thing is silly political posturing, but the case itself seems like a pretty clear cut AGPL violation. Hope it gets worked out alright, and that across the aisle we can all agree to respect free software licenses.

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with having political ideas behind what you do, at the end of the day Mastodon was created for political reasons, first, to support free software, second, to create a web alternative to the shitshow that twitter tends to be.

Having that said, enforcing the AGPL rules is an activity that should be done regardless of your political ideas, if someone is violating the AGPL3 the projects have every right to ask them to comply, especially when the offenders belong to powerfull corporate groups that do have the money and the resources.

Mastodon saying "we don't like them" is an expression of honesty IMO, but not the only reason to why they want to seek legal counseling.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#509

Post by Y_Y »

mdp2021 wrote: post #415
Y_Y wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about a bakery forbidding sale of cakes to people whose marriage violates their "code of conduct"?

Literally: a server should be free to decline services to specific clients - service is conditional. It should be easy for anyone in general to think of a list of clients one would not work for. Contextually: the point is more like "we do not accept that these springs we build can be used in landmines". It ecompasses the literal point, yet it is different - at least, it refuses the purpose, not the person.

That's not quite the same thing. Can a server or some other service provider refuse for any reason they like? What about protected classes? Should there be a whitelist of "good reasons"?

Purpose and person are hard to separate too. Like if you will sell cakes to anyone, except that nobody will be given a cake if it's for a gay wedding.

Re: Trump’s new social media platform found using Mastodon code

#510

Post by lorabe »

roenxi wrote: post #134
s7r wrote: post #121

In terms of "antithetical values", the machine learning project ml5js.org actually did something about this. They bound their open-source license to a Code of Conduct¹, which forbids the use of their ML software for (1) discriminating against marginalized communities, (2) building tools that disingenuously manipulate public opinion, (3) building tools of mass surveillance and prediction to repress the rights of peopl…

If all software was licensed that way, 5-15 years would pass then suddenly there'd be a whole bunch of "Wow, Stallman was right again! We should have been using free software licenses!" style articles. Restricting software use to only people approved by the creators is a terrible idea. Society has to operate with some level of trust that even people we disagree with, using methods we don't approve of, have the potent…

Not really, it goes withing the framework of freedom to define what actions are to be allowed or not under certain licenses.

There is nothing wrong with making, let's say, a licence that prohibits the use of its adhered product for activities such as the development of nuclear weapons.

Post reply on HN